SUPERIOR BUILDERS vs JAINABAI A.KALASEKAR

THIS revision petition is filed by the petitioner herein, who was opposite party before the State Commission aggrieved by the order of the State Commission passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 1981 of 2001 for recall of the order passed in Complaint No. 366 of 2000. The facts in brief which lead the petitioner to approach the National Commission are as under :

SMT. Jainabai A. Kalasekar, complainant before the State Commission had entered into a contract with the Builder, i.e. the petitioner herein, for purchase of flat and paid a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- in instalments to the Builder and the flat was to be delivered on 31.12.1998. Since the flat was not delivered by the stipulated time the complainant filed complaint before the State Commission for refund of the amount with interest. Before the State Commission neither the opposite party appeared nor any reply was filed in spite of notice. The State Commission after proceeding against the opposite party ex prate, on consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the complaint and directed the Builder to refund the sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- with interest @ 15% p.a. In addition to this, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs was also awarded. After this order was passed, the opposite party filed an application before the State Commission for recalling the ex prate order. The reason given in the application was that the opposite parties were out of station for long time to attend their seriously sick father, hence the necessary instructions could not be provided to their Advocate for preparation and submission of their written statement in time. The State Commission was not satisfied with this plea as this was not corroborated by any evidence and this statement was also not on affidavit. In this context the State Commission reproduced a relevant portion of its earlier order which reads as under : "None for the opposite parties although duly served with the process. No written statement has been filed. It is stated that opposite parties appeared before this Commission on 22.6.2001 along with his Advocate Mr. Chandrakant Mhatre. He has filed his appearance. Since the opposite parties have not appeared and filed their reply within time, leave was granted to him to file written statement on a condition of payment of cost as condition precedent."

It may be mentioned here again that the opposite parties did not care to appear on the next date of hearing or file their reply. In these circumstances the State Commission had proceeded against them ex parte. While dismissing the application for recall of the order, the State Commission rightly observed that the main order was passed on merits and it has no power of review. Against this order passed on recall application as also against the ex parte order, the opposite party has come in revision before us.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We have also gone through both the orders of the State Commission. We do not find any fault in those, as it is clear that the opposite parties were given ample time to file reply and contest the matter and that the application for recall of an order passed on merits did not lie. No material has been brought on record of the State Commission to show that the order on merits was wrong or suffered from any legal infirmity. The State Commission has gone into the merits of the case and allowed the same with which we are in full agreement. As a result it does not call for any interference by us in revision under Section 2l(b). Apart from this, we find that the revision has been filed before us beyond time. The main order was passed by the State Commission on 20th September, 2001 and the order on the application for recall was passed on 5th April, 2002 which was received by the petitioner on 15.4.2002. Though there is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision before us. It does not disclose any valid, cogent or satisfactory reasons to condone the delay. Hence, we reject the same. In view of what observed above, this revision petition is dismissed both on merits as well as on limitation. Revision Petition dismissed.